Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
It is helpful in placing different proposals in relations to each other
and what would be the changes from now.
Speaking within my personal capacity -
I am not convinced about the need to create a seperate organization to
perform the IANA function, as some of the proposals are suggesting.
I would like see minimum changes to what is already working.
I am hearing Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) of ICANN
has a plan to produce a report. I am looking forward to seeing this
before making too much judgements at this stage.
Izumi
(2014/03/26 12:41), Dean Pemberton wrote:
> What do other people think?
> Should the policy development (even for global policies) for these
> functions be handled by different groups outside of ICANN oversight and
> control completely?
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dean,
>>
>> IMO,
>>
>> - ccTLD
>> - gTLD
>> - IP address and AS numbers including reverse DNS zone
>>
>> these three are separated topics and should be governed by different
>> organizations in multi stakeholder model.
>> This separation is much more important than separation between policies
>> and contracts,
>> so I prefer most last option rather than second last option.
>>
>> Rgs,
>> Masato Yamanishi
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/03/25 15:50, "Dean Pemberton" <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And here is my comment.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Regarding current overlay in page 3, don't we need to mention about
>>>> ASO
>>>> AC/NRO NC
>>>> which is responsible to global policy for IP/AS as part of ICANN?
>>>> (Current figure seems ICANN is handling it by themselves directly,
>>>> but
>>>> it is not true)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>>> 2. While I prefer last option in page 9, do we need "NEW ENTITY 1"
>>>> responsible for gTLD policy?
>>>> I agree that it is ideally better to separate gTLD policy and gTLD
>>>> contracts,
>>>> but I don't think it is doable in this timeframe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems more doable in the timeframe than the previous option of
>>> having the NE1 take on a similar policy role for IP/ASNs and ccTLDs as
>>> well.
>>> Whats your opinion on those two options? Which would be a better
>>> model if there was sufficient time to implement either?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dean
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net <javascript:;>
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>